Newt is not a patron saint of Republicanism. There is a reason why his ideas from 15 years ago did not gain traction.
By definition, Newt is a patron saint of Republicanism. Polling of likely Republican primary voters give him 35 percent of the field. He has plurality support from Republicans.
Your comments about "no true Republican" in this thread seemed designed to distance yourself from the Republican agenda. You want it both ways -- you want to keep supporting dinosaur social and fiscal planks without bearing your party's badge of shame.
Smart Republicans aren't going to challenge an incumbent. It's easier to wait it out and go after Obama gets his 8. In the last 20 years no president has served less than 2 terms. In the past 30 only George HW Bush served less than 2 terms. Especially considering the ideological throes that the Republican party is going through at the moment. It's better to stay home and wait for the Republican constituency to get its head out of it collective ass. I think an embarrassing loss and the official death of the tea party will bring out the competent Republicans in a few election cycles. Until then, it's gonna be all herpa derp. I think the question is, "How bad can it get?" And, "Will they need to reform the party under a new name?"
Summary - Newt is at the top, with Romney not far behind, while Perry, Bachmann and Cain are batting for the middle ground. Ron Paul and Rick Santorum are both engaged in a head-long race to rock bottom.
Smart Republicans aren't going to challenge an incumbent. It's easier to wait it out and go after Obama gets his 8. In the last 20 years no president has served less than 2 terms. In the past 30 only George HW Bush served less than 2 terms. Especially considering the ideological throes that the Republican party is going through at the moment. It's better to stay home and wait for the Republican constituency to get its head out of it collective ass. I think an embarrassing loss and the official death of the tea party will bring out the competent Republicans in a few election cycles. Until then, it's gonna be all herpa derp. I think the question is, "How bad can it get?" And, "Will they need to reform the party under a new name?"
While I agree incumbents are extremely hard to beat, saying an incumbent has not been defeated in the past 20 years means almost zero. I mean in the last 20 years we've only had 3 or 4 presidents (depending on how you are counting 20 years.. I guess), one current and one that lost in 1992 (which would mean it's in the past 20 year) So in reality in the past twenty years we've had TWO presidents get two terms and one get one, and one is in the middle of his first. Either way, the fact that presidents hang around for 4 years PLUS the years after they serve 8 no one is the incumbent, leads to a very small sample size leading to that statement meaning nothing. :-p
Smart Republicans aren't going to challenge an incumbent. It's easier to wait it out and go after Obama gets his 8. In the last 20 years no president has served less than 2 terms.
I believe that's why Christie decided not to run. I believe 2016 will be Christie vs. Hillary. I don't care what she says now, she wants to be president.
Smart Republicans aren't going to challenge an incumbent. It's easier to wait it out and go after Obama gets his 8. In the last 20 years no president has served less than 2 terms. In the past 30 only George HW Bush served less than 2 terms. Especially considering the ideological throes that the Republican party is going through at the moment. It's better to stay home and wait for the Republican constituency to get its head out of it collective ass. I think an embarrassing loss and the official death of the tea party will bring out the competent Republicans in a few election cycles. Until then, it's gonna be all herpa derp. I think the question is, "How bad can it get?" And, "Will they need to reform the party under a new name?"
While I agree incumbents are extremely hard to beat, saying an incumbent has not been defeated in the past 20 years means almost zero. I mean in the last 20 years we've only had 3 or 4 presidents (depending on how you are counting 20 years.. I guess), one current and one that lost in 1992 (which would mean it's in the past 20 year) So in reality in the past twenty years we've had TWO presidents get two terms and one get one, and one is in the middle of his first. Either way, the fact that presidents hang around for 4 years PLUS the years after they serve 8 no one is the incumbent, leads to a very small sample size leading to that statement meaning nothing. :-p
2012-1993 = 19. I guess you got me there since that 1 year totally invalidates my entire statement. Oh wait it doesn't because I just remembered I don't care.
Why should a group of people who choose to incorporate have any more or less rights than someone acting on their own? If a corporation is going to be treated as a person don't they have to follow the same election spending rules as the rest of us?
Election money is just one small part of corporations being treated as people.
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to expressly exclude for-profit corporations from the rights given to natural persons by the Constitution of the United States, prohibit corporate spending in all elections, and affirm the authority of Congress and the States to regulate corporations and to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures.
He lost any support I might have given him right there. He's drawing a distinction between for and non-profit corporations. This needs to apply to ALL corporations.
‘‘SECTION 1. The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons and do not extend to for-profit corporations, limited liability companies, or other private entities established for business purposes or to promote business interests under the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state.
Not just corporations...
‘‘SECTION 2. Such corporate and other private entities established under law are subject to regulation by the people through the legislative process so long as such regulations are consistent with the powers of Congress and the States and do not limit the freedom of the press.
Good, good...
‘‘SECTION 3. Such corporate and other private entities shall be prohibited from making contributions or expenditures in any election of any candidate for public office or the vote upon any ballot measure submitted to the people.
Can't act as a group unless you are non-profit?
‘‘SECTION 4. Congress and the States shall have the power to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own spending, and to authorize the establishment of political committees to receive, spend, and publicly disclose the sources of those contributions and expenditures.’’.
Limits on spending by the candidate too?
This is destined for failure. Too much poison built in for it to ever pass.
Do non-profit corporations even have the ability to do the things that amendment is attempting to regulate? I don't see why they would have been excluded unless they were already excluded.
I may be mistaken, but aren't non-profit organizations in the U.S. already disallowed from making political contributions in order to keep their tax exemption?
I may be mistaken, but aren't non-profit organizations in the U.S. already disallowed from making political contributions in order to keep their tax exemption?
You are partly correct. IRS codes say 501(c)(3) non-profit groups are prohibited from having politically-motivated activities or lobbying as a significant part of their operations.
But there are any other types of non-profits. There's an entire tax class called political action groups. There are also private non-profit foundations.
I may be mistaken, but aren't non-profit organizations in the U.S. already disallowed from making political contributions in order to keep their tax exemption?
You are partly correct. IRS codes say 501(c)(3) non-profit groups are prohibited from having politically-motivated activities or lobbying as a significant part of their operations.
But there are any other types of non-profits. There's an entire tax class called political action groups. There are also private non-profit foundations.
The difference being that contributions to PACs aren't tax deductible.
While contributions to those groups may not be tax deductible, political non-profits (527s) are tax-exempt and can raise all kinds of money for candidates, try to sway public opinion on votes, lobby, and otherwise try to influence legislation.
Alabama passed some really foolish legislation regarding illegal immigrants, and now it seems some chickens are coming home to roost. Only...now there's no one to take care of the chickens.
Here are two amazing Rolling Stone articles about exactly what has happened to the Republican party, why it happened, and where it is going: How The GOP Became The Party Of The Rich. The GOP's Crackpot Agenda Both articles are particularly interesting because of the number of old-guard Republicans, even some who served under Regan and H.W. Bush, who have voiced concern and even disgust and anger over what has happened to their party. I want to know how come their voices aren't heard more often and with more volume.
So in a supremely moronic move, the House GOP decided that in order to extend a payroll tax cut for millions of not-ludicrously-wealthy Americans, Obama would have to build an oil pipeline from Alberta, Canada to Texas. Even if the idea to build a pipeline had some merit, the fact that these morons want to do something SO CLEARLY in favor of cronies is so shockingly stupid, that even a one-sided editorial in an oil blog called it a stupid move. The GOP has spun some myth that the answer to unemployment is to saturate the jobs market in oil. Considering their top candidates want to eliminate the EPA, among other agencies which most of the assembled gang of loons can't even remember, anyone with half a brain can see the recipe for disaster this is. Also, the Obama administration didn't even stop the idea of a pipeline, just delayed it for time to do a study (you know, environmental studies to make sure we don't sacrifice thousands of acreage to the GOP's Oil Overlords, something the GOP doesn't even seem to think twice about). NOW what we're hearing from the right is that Obama killed a tax and jobs bill. Fortunately, that spin doesn't seem to be getting any traction outside of Faux News, but it's infuriating that any lawmaker on either side can tie some ludicrous, unconnected doohickey to a bill like that. The Payroll Tax Extension had nothing to do with blowing billions on a favor to the already wildly unpopular Oil Giants. The fact that the GOP is trying at all to make it seem that way is despicable.
The Obama presidential campaign is launching an effort to collect Republican email addresses by inviting its supporters to submit information about their Republican associates to the Obama 2012 website.
Short answer: No. If you give your contact info to someone (let's say on a business card), that person can give the information away -- or in many corporate situations, sell it.
Nope. I can submit information I personally have about you to anyone I choose in many cases, especially public-facing information like email addresses I acquired through legitimate means.
Let me guess, all do not call/do not contact lists still have an exception for political groups?
Yup. I get about half a dozen calls every year from local candidates or their robo-callers around election times. It doesn't bother me too much, because it also helps me remember to vote. I've never received a call from the Republican candidates though.
I get telemarketing calls to my cell phone from the Kingston, NY local paper. I feel kinda sad for them, since they're trying desperately to hold on. But then I remember that they're soliciting me on my cellphone, and won't take me off whatever list they've got.
Comments
Your comments about "no true Republican" in this thread seemed designed to distance yourself from the Republican agenda. You want it both ways -- you want to keep supporting dinosaur social and fiscal planks without bearing your party's badge of shame.
Summary - Newt is at the top, with Romney not far behind, while Perry, Bachmann and Cain are batting for the middle ground. Ron Paul and Rick Santorum are both engaged in a head-long race to rock bottom.
(P.S. I may be from NJ, but I hate the blowhard.)
Election money is just one small part of corporations being treated as people.
PS: Is there a link to the text of his proposed amendment? Found it: http://sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Saving-American-Democracy.pdf He lost any support I might have given him right there. He's drawing a distinction between for and non-profit corporations. This needs to apply to ALL corporations. Not just corporations...
‘‘SECTION 2. Such corporate and other private entities established under law are subject to regulation by the people through the legislative process so long as such regulations are consistent with the powers of Congress and the States and do not limit the freedom of the press.
Good, good...
‘‘SECTION 3. Such corporate and other private entities shall be prohibited from making contributions or expenditures in any election of any candidate for public office or the vote upon any ballot measure submitted to the people.
Can't act as a group unless you are non-profit?
‘‘SECTION 4. Congress and the States shall have the power to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own spending, and to authorize the establishment of political committees to receive, spend, and publicly disclose the sources of those contributions and expenditures.’’.
Limits on spending by the candidate too?
This is destined for failure. Too much poison built in for it to ever pass.
http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=163395,00.html
But there are any other types of non-profits. There's an entire tax class called political action groups. There are also private non-profit foundations.
How The GOP Became The Party Of The Rich.
The GOP's Crackpot Agenda
Both articles are particularly interesting because of the number of old-guard Republicans, even some who served under Regan and H.W. Bush, who have voiced concern and even disgust and anger over what has happened to their party. I want to know how come their voices aren't heard more often and with more volume.
Surprising no one, not caring about the shrinking Arctic ice has led to something pretty damn bad.
The GOP has spun some myth that the answer to unemployment is to saturate the jobs market in oil. Considering their top candidates want to eliminate the EPA, among other agencies which most of the assembled gang of loons can't even remember, anyone with half a brain can see the recipe for disaster this is.
Also, the Obama administration didn't even stop the idea of a pipeline, just delayed it for time to do a study (you know, environmental studies to make sure we don't sacrifice thousands of acreage to the GOP's Oil Overlords, something the GOP doesn't even seem to think twice about).
NOW what we're hearing from the right is that Obama killed a tax and jobs bill. Fortunately, that spin doesn't seem to be getting any traction outside of Faux News, but it's infuriating that any lawmaker on either side can tie some ludicrous, unconnected doohickey to a bill like that. The Payroll Tax Extension had nothing to do with blowing billions on a favor to the already wildly unpopular Oil Giants. The fact that the GOP is trying at all to make it seem that way is despicable.
Umm... Forgive me if I'm over-reacting here but doesn't this run afoul of privacy laws?
(My phone has an area code from around there)